What is the Right to Repair Act?

Useful Rulings on Right to Repair Act

Recent Rulings on Right to Repair Act

GEOFFREY BENNETT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CLEAVES M. BENNETT, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE CLEAVES M. BENNETT LIVING TRUST VS ELIZABETH CHAI-CHANG, ET AL.

(b) This section shall not apply to an action against a public entity or public employee upon a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 950) of Part 4, of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. This subdivision shall not apply to any claim presented to a public entity prior to January 1, 1971. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YAMILET ROMO V. LARRY AUDET

Government Code section 910 lists the information that must be included in a notice of claim. Specifically, section 910 provides that a claim shall show all of the following: (a) The name and post office address of the claimant. (b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. (c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ASATOUR SINANIAN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

¿¿Section 910 lists the information that must be included in a notice of claim, including the¿“date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted[,]” provide a “[a] general description of the ... injury,¿damage¿or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim[,]” and state the amount of the claim if it is less than $10,000, or, if the claim exceeds $10,000, the dollar amount cannot be stated but the claim must indicate

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LUCERO VS. HORIZON UNDERPINNING, LLC

Plaintiffs have not shown that they complied with the requirements of the Right to Repair Act. They have not established that they served the written notice required by Civil Code §910(a). The April 2018 meeting did not serve as the required SB 800 inspection as to Horizon Underpinning, LLC or John Martindale because they were never put on notice of the relevant issues as required by Civil Code §910(a).

  • Hearing

TURNER VS METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM

Section 945.4 provides: "Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . ."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREW SOTO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Government Code section 946.6(b) requires that the petition to the court must show each of the following: (1) that the late claim application made to the board was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to present the claim within six months of the accrual of the cause of action; and (3) the contents of the claim as required by Government Code section 910. The petition must be filed within six months after the application to present a late claim to the board was denied or deemed to be denied.

  • Hearing

HOUDA ASSALY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

In opposition to this argument, Plaintiff contends that Government Code section 910 only requires “a general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim,” and that, as such, her pre-suit notice was sufficient. The court agrees with Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARY DURHAM VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

The petition for relief in state court must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. (Gov’t C. § 946.6(b).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.

to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for 17 such defects; 18 (4) The claim for spotted IGUs is not recoverable under Plaintiff’s cause of action for 19 breach of implied warranty as The Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for 20 such defects; and 21 (5) The claim for spotted IGUs is not recoverable under Plaintiff’s cause of action for 22 breach of the declaration of covenants, codes, and restrictions as The Right to 23 Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for such defects. 24 Webcor’s motion is directed

  • Hearing

PARDO VS LIBERTY MANUFACTURED HOMES, INC.

Plaintiff sued for negligence, nuisance, nondisclosure and statutory relief under the Right to Repair Act. Defendants contend that plaintiff’s “ordinary” causes of action are preempted and subsumed with the statutory Right to Repair Act. Plaintiff says that negligence is an alternative pleading since no court has yet confirmed whether a manufactured home falls within the definitions applicable to the statute and that other claims are outside the scope of the statute.

  • Hearing

VERONICA REYNAGA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Section 910 ... until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board....” Section 910, in turn, requires that the claim state the “date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted” and provide “[a] general description of the ... injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.” (Stockett v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PATEL M.D. VS JELD-WEN, INC

Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 646 [superseded by statute through the enactment of the Right to Repair Act, as explained in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1203; Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 9, 19.) Plaintiffs can recover the cost of replacement of the defective products in tort but only if Plaintiffs also plead and prove that they also sustained appreciable and nonspeculative injury to property other than the defective products. (See e.g. KB Home v.

  • Hearing

BERNARDO ARTEAGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO DECEDENT, DANIEL ARTEAGA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This government claim allegedly filed by Cain on Bernardo’s behalf does not comply with Government Code section 910 because the government claim expressly identifies Cain as the claimant and Bernardo as merely a witness to the damage or injury. The substantial compliance doctrine cannot salvage Bernardo’s wrongful death claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JUNE VAYO VS JOSE C MUNOZ

The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).

  • Hearing

JUNE VAYO VS JOSE C MUNOZ

The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).

  • Hearing

PARISI, ET AL. V. ALMADEN PROJECT LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs requested that AP, RG and Masoumi repair the items on the punch list and the numerous construction defects, and were notified of defects pursuant to the Right to Repair Act. (See FAC, ¶¶ 11-13.)

  • Hearing

SHERRELL PICKENS VS LONG BEACH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).

  • Hearing

MICHAEL BUTLER VS LONG BEACH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).

  • Hearing

MERCEDES RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF MONTEBELLO

The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).

  • Hearing

DAVID SHETLAND VS CITY OF LONG BEACH,

. … “(b) The petition shall show each of the following: “(1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. “(2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. “(3) The information required by Section 910[2]. “The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RITO VASQUEZ VS CITY OF PASADENA

(3) The information required by Section 910. The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BETTY LONG V. CITY OF EXETER

Failure to Identify Bush and Inglehart in the Claims Presented to the City Section 910 sets forth the essential contents of the claim, which include the name of the public employee(s) who caused the injury, damage, or loss, if known. (§ 910(e).) The purpose of these [claims] statutes is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.’

  • Hearing

KESTER V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Government Code section 910 provides that a claim shall be presented by a claimant or “by a person acting on his behalf” and section 910.2 provides that the claim shall be signed by claimant or “by some person on his behalf.” It is clear that Esse L. Lacy presented the claim to respondent on his own behalf and on the behalf of his wife and children. (Lacy, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d at p. 155.)

  • Hearing

CHRISTIAN DIAZ VS CITY OF MONTEREY PATK, ET AL.

(3) The information required by Section 910. The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.

  • Hearing

SAEIDEH MIRI VS NADINE ALI ELHOR, ET AL.

Code § 945.4 states: “Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.